Freed from the shackles of political objectivity and direct quoting, we find out this girl can really tell it like it is!;

“So it is fitting Harper has chosen to land last here in a tour that seemed deliberately designed to show his defiant � some would say contemptuous � streak.”
“Highly controlling in style, Harper aspires to be an establishment unto himself, and the means to that end seem to require he knock down all others in the political establishment.”
“It sometimes seems like the election has not ended for Harper.”
“By this, Harper doesn’t mean the “Calgary school,” the clutch of University of Calgary academics who helped forge his early thinking. He means the ones who disagree with him.”
“He presented all these kinds of people as the impediments to a proper child-care program in Canada. But in so doing, he sounded more like an opposition politician on the campaign trail than a prime minister who, technically, is supposed to represent and serve all Canadians, regardless of their politics.”
“The main thing they will probably learn is whether they’ve been cast already in Harper’s polarized world as for him or against him.”

And there’s lots more where that came from. I like this little Delacourtian Slip best of all;

“Last, but not least, the media.”

Emphasis hers.

Hugh Hewitt:

Columnist to the world, Mark Steyn, begins today as he does most Thursdays. Steynoline.com is where you can find all of his work. Mark, I want to begin with journalism today, because the Pulitzers came out, and the New York Times won for betraying national security secrets, the New Orleans Times-Picayune won for creating frozen bodies in freezers that weren’t there, and today, Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize winning from a few years ago columnist, Michael Hiltzik, is revealed to be a serial creator of his own identities to praise himself on blogs. What’s happened to modern journalism?

They cover a lot of topics – Hewitt and Steyn are always a great read.

It’s an album release by a war profiteer.
One would think that professional journalists would know the difference.

Story here. The reader who contributed this helpfully suggested; “Now, maybe they mean that being dead makes your condition ‘stable’.”
Maybe!

But you don’t understand, whined Winnipeg Free Press reporter Paul Samyn last Sunday.
” as a proxy for you, the reader, who doesn’t get to ask questions of those in power, I think your interests are also in play in the escalating communications war between the press and the Prime Minister’s office .”
Hey, Paul… We’re not at war with the PM.
I nteresting choice of words there… i sn’t the goal of a war to defeat the enemy? (Bias? What bias? No bias here. Move on. Nothing to see here.)
And, Paul. We withdrew our proxy long ago.
Maybe it was about the time you, as the vox populi, decided it was imperative for the electorate to know the thoughts of Kreskin the Mentalist instead of doing a single story about the income trust scandal that was consuming the Liberals’ fortunes.
We had to read the blogs to get details of the income trust scandal because you felt Kreskin was more important. It took months before we found out that Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison was tipping off his close personal pals in the banking industry with here a wink, there a wink, everywhere a nudge, nudge. You’d think Kreskin would have known.

The rest of this spanking is up at the Black Rod.

Via a caller to John Gormley Live

A Jim Travers op-ed in the Star considers the underlying sloth of the Ottawa press gallery;

In diminishing the effectiveness of his press interactions, the Prime Minister is indirectly encouraging reporters to fan out to look elsewhere for news, a radical notion that’s not in his interest and will lead to scrutiny no administration can sustain.

Reporters actually going out to get the news? This cannot stand!
So, there we have it – tacit admission by a leading Ottawa journalist that the majority of his peers have behaved as lazy, spoon-fed agents of the Liberal party. One would think that such a revelation would be worthy of a column of journalistic self-examination, or at least a direct acknowledgment that accusations of pro-Liberal bias have foundation. Instead, he predictably issues yet another “warning” from media to the Harper government.
When we speak of “newspaper recycling”, Mr. Travers, we’re really thinking of the paper, not the ink.
Let’s get the real reason for this little squabble out into the open. The shrill cries from the press gallery for “accountability”, the invocation of “American-style” motives in keeping cabinet ministers and government officials on a short leash, the faux alarm about “secrecy” are complete and utter hogwash. What we are witnessing is a media suffering through loss. Harper’s changes mean the opportunity to practice the bread-and-butter of modern political reporting – the fine art of “gotcha journalism” – has been cruelly snatched from them.
At the moment, most seem to stuck somewhere between “anger” and “bargaining”, May they move to the stage of “acceptance” soon, and get back to the real business of reporting.
Postscript::
I can’t let the column in question go by without drawing attention to how Travers signals his personal viewpoint on a different score. (And I don’t mean just the predictable cheap shot attempts to paint Harper as ” reading from the George W. Bush script”.)

…a social shift away from universal programs and toward what is euphemistically called “choice.”

The word “choice” is not considered a “euphanism” when it comes to the question of abortion policy – so, why does Travers attempt to discredit choice when the issue is child care or health care?

Stephen Taylor pulls together a very good post on the “all about me” performance of CBC’s Keith Boag last evening.

Boag tries to link the frustrations of his job with “government accountability”. Canadians voted for change in the way that government contracts are awarded, lobbying is conducted, and the way that whistleblowers are protected. They voted for accountability in the way government works. Canadians did not vote for the Boag’s easy access to the most sought-after video and sound bite.

Precisely.
Be sure to read the comments – CTV’s David Akin weighs in.

Canadian Sentinel (from the comments *);

“What will they do next? Throw a pie?”

Would anyone be that surprised?

National Journal;

Photographers with digital cameras have provided, almost instantaneously, an enormous flood of accurate, dramatic, and even shocking images to people around the world. But the daily downloads of news photos include some that are staged, fake, or so lacking in context as to be meaningless, despite the Western media’s best efforts to separate the factual from the fictional.
[…]
For photo editors, new pressures to get it right are coming from Internet bloggers who collect and post critical comments from ordinary citizens and also from niche experts who may have intimate knowledge of the local culture, the U.S. military, or the particular news event in question, Elbert said. “We in the mainstream media have always decided what [images] we want to push out, but now people are disagreeing and questioning accuracy,” he said. “This is really confounding the mainstream media.”

For example;

If big media refrained from hiring stringers from Zarqawi-Bin Laden Paparazzi Studios, this might occur a little less often. On the other hand – that seems to be where they find many of their “opinion” columnists, so why not!
h/t

Why do we need bloggers to fill in the relevant legal details on news stories? In other words, where is the “due diligence” we are told sets professional journalism apart from amateurs?

The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby�s alleged �revelation� that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable. The entire flap relies on mixing terms and �misunderstanding by innuendo� � a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing �gotcha� with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.
Presidents and vice-presidents can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near-absolute. Disseminating unclassified information isn�t a crime � no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or � yes� via leak. (UPDATE: Background links I should have included in the original post� though the president�s power in the sphere is common knowledge. The president is at the top of the Classification Authority hierarchy� he holds the ultimate clasification/declassification power. The vice-president is granted authority from the president. See this link to the relevant executive order regarding the vie-president. And I just found this article by Byron York which details the estension of presidential powers to the vice-president. York�s article emphasizes the formal codification of the vice-president�s classification powers, which is a change from past administrations.)
Reporters thrive on �leaks� because a leak usually means �scoop.� A leak can also mean �spin� but that�s an understood aspect of Washington�s political carnival. However, leaking properly declassified material isn�t a crime. Leaking classified material is illegal� and so is publishing classified material in a press release.
So what�s the story here? That someone who worked in the White House selectively passed properly declassified material to the press? That�s not a scandal; that�s Beltway business as usual. I�d love to hear that reported� it�s not news per se, but it would be refreshingly open and honest media analysis.

This story was coming across local news radio this afternoon in the context of “Bush authorized leak of classified Iraq intelligence”. As there are individuals there who also read this blog, it will be interesting to see how quickly the story is updated to reflect the facts.
Speaking of which, this reminder is also appropriate;

Remember, Libby was not indicted for illegally identifying Plame as a covert agent; he was indicted for perjury, a procedural crime. This pseudo-revelation may or may not relate to his alleged perjury. (According to a report I just heard on Fox it doesn�t; ie, the NIE declassification story does not relate to the perjury charges.)

Emphasis mine. Read the original to access the background links mentioned.
(Via Instapundit)
Byron York concurs.

First of all, it should be made clear — as it has not been in some discussions — that Fitzgerald does not say that Bush authorized Libby to say anything about Valerie Plame. As a matter of fact, on page 27, Fitzgerald writes that as late as September 2003, “the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment…”
As for leaking portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, yes, it was classified, although it would later be declassified. But it should be remembered that when the president decides to make something public, then it can be made public.

For future reference: if you’re interested bypassing the “filter” to get coherent analysis on breaking US political news from the perspective of people who might actually know what they’re talking about, I suggest you bookmark NRO’s The Corner,
More for the reading-comprehension-challenged in the peanut gallery – CNN’s David Ensor;

Ensor: So, it had nothing to do with Valerie Plame-Wilson’s name. It was simply about this matter of intelligence in the lead-up to the war.
And in that matter, the president, according to this document, authorized Mr. Libby to give out some information to Judy Miller.
And by the way, he is legally entitled to do so.
If the president decides to declassify information, he has that legal right. So, it’s not about a law being broken here, and it’s not about Valerie Plame-Wilson’s name. But it does show us the first evidence that the president himself wanted some of this information put out in the media.
CLANCY: Well, at the time, if you go back to that period in time, there was a clamor from not only the media but from a lot of Americans that wanted more information, more details about what were, up to that point, rather vague statements at times by diplomats trying to assess just what was the threat there. So this was seen — would this be normal business in Washington, really?
ENSOR: I’m afraid so, yes. And, you know, after all, the — Ambassador Wilson — [former] Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson being Valerie Plame-Wilson’s husband — had put out a piece [a July 2003 editorial in The New York Times] in which he said — in which he attacked the administration for suggesting Iraq was going after uranium in Africa.
The administration wanted to highlight certain parts of this until-then-classified document that suggested that Iraq was aggressively pursuing some aspects of a nuclear weapons program, was looking for ways of getting uranium.
And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that’s — I’m afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It’s been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Via CBC Watch – Even a self declared “Bush hater” cites this case as example of CBC bias.. No, really.

A few days ago a reader sent me a thoughtful email pointing out the numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this piece by Eric Margolis, and suggested I take it on.
I’m sorry. I don’t “do” Margolis.
I don’t own a backhoe,
(Though, reader Mark Collins punts one of his assertions (and spanks Lawrence Martin for repeating it) in this readers tips thread – and “Karl” has now reposted his original email in the comments of this one.)

C. Dodd Harris IV (of the famed, but sadly defunct Ipse Dixit) protests the content of this post;

As a lawyer, I deeply resent the implicit comparison to journalists in this post.

My deepest apologies to any other lawyers who were similarly insulted.
And to used car dealers, whorehouse piano players, pickpockets, dog catchers, meter readers, proctologists, and tax collectors, who, though not mentioned specifically, no doubt felt the hot flush of knowing how it feels to hear their occupations mentioned in the same breath as “reporter”.

Michelle Malkin;

Catch that? The apparent “sting” involves targeting Nascar and other sporting events. ‘Cause that’s presumably where the fair and balanced NBC news staff thinks all the bigots are.

UpdateNBC’s news-staging stunt is now making the news. NASCAR officials are unimpressed.

Paul Jackson on the Ottawa “rat pack”;

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has good reason not to trust the Eastern-based Lib-Left dominated media.
So did Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.
As did Reform party leader Preston Manning.
The Lib-Left media — led by that wholly-owned subsidiary of the federal Liberal party, the CBC, the Toronto (Red) Star, the pompous Globe and Mail and their naive hangers-on and acolytes — did all they could to mock, heap scorn on, ridicule and twist just about everything Manning and Day said.
[…]
While Harper went through a similar meatgrinder during the 2004 campaign — with the Eastern media for the most part dancing to Martin’s slurs — by 2006 our new prime minister had learned a thing or two.
I actually warned Manning, Day and Harper to stay away from the CBC, Star and Globe and every other media outfit of a Lib-Left bent.

In these parts we have a saying for what the media has brought upon themselves – it’s called “pissing in your own bed”. Well, let them soak in it for a while.

Harper may find he has initially been too stringent in ordering his cabinet ministers and MPs to have tight lips — but, let’s be honest here, many are young and inexperienced — and he may have maintained too much bitterness over the treatment of Manning, Day and to an extent his early days as Conservative leader.
What he must do now is cautiously loosen the reins on his ministers after they settle into their roles. Then, just as cautiously, he should build relationships with journalists he can trust.

Read the whole thing – particularly if you’re one of those now cooling their heels while the new government keeps you at arms length. And make no mistake about another thing – if you think the general public shares your self-pity or buys into the shrill ” threat to democracy” hyperbole, think again.
For a better understanding of just how little most care that the rules have changed for the pack on the hill, may I suggest this little exercise – pull up one of those dozens of articles written by jilted scribes chastizing, whining and threatening retribution over the treatment of the fifth estate by the new Harper government.
Now, replace the words “media” or “journalists” with “lawyers”.
The heart bleeds, I tell you.

Teletubbies plot next move as they attempt to outmaneuver new rival … ;

The creators of “Sesame Street” are releasing a new line of videos Tuesday targeted for children as young as six months, outraging some child-development experts who feel no form of TV or video is suitable for kids under 2.
The DVDs _ part of a series called “Sesame Beginnings” _ are intended to be watched by parents along with their small children. Sesame Workshop developed the shows with help of experts from Zero to Three, a well-regarded nonprofit advocacy group.

Developing…

He calls papers like The New York Times �a tablet of stone, it is a paper of great authority. And if you ever go to a New York Times editorial meeting, it�s a bit like a religious ceremony.� He talks about the effort and resource that goes into the front page. ��Believe us,� is the message. If it goes onto the front page of The New York Times it�s there because it�s important�. �You may not want to read it but it�s our opinion.� And this is a model that has existed again for a hundred years�.
�This is journalism as revelation: �We are the figures of authority. All these important people at the top speak to us. You can�t speak to because you�re too little�. We are the conduit and we tell you what�s important. It�s like this. Believe us.� And occasionally, the little people would write a letter�. And we�d print a few of these letters very graciously. But most of them we�d drop in the bin�. This was the paper I inherited in 1995, which had been printed since 1821�.�
Then came technology that enabled the conversation, first in the form of email. �This was a big challenge to journalists because they didn�t know quite how to respond and some journalists got quite huffy about this and said, �Look, push off, I�m the figure of authority here� Our job is to tell you what�s what. We don�t want to hear from you because frankly we�re the experts around here.�� Others, he said, found it valuable to improve their journalism.
But often, the people were ignored, so: �What happened next is that these people started talking to each other. They didn�t ask our permission to do this at all� And they started forming little groups of people who began critiquing newspapers� They went behind our back to our sources because, increasingly, the information that we were using was available on the internet�. A bit cheeky of the readers to do that�� (Remember my warning about irony, folks.)
He says it got to the point where he would come into the office and if the paper had made �a mistake about anything, dozens of people around the world had already spotted this and were challenging this. This was a different kind of audience. The old audience� were willing to take on trust your view of a wide range of information that we were saying is important. And these people are, to a much greater degree, self-selecting�� That is, they follow the news that interests them. �Now they�re not wrong, these people, because the internet now does an awful of information on an awful lot of subjects that�s better than newspapers. I shouldn�t be saying this, live, to the world outside. I should be keeping this as a secret.�

Who is “he”? Alan Rusbridger – editor of The Guardian.
Jarvis writes;

I recommend that every American journalist and news executive listen to this speech on newspapers in the age of blogs…

The mp3 file is too large for me to contemplate downloading over dialup, but it comes highly recommended.

As I work here at the shop, I’ve been watching a panel of journalists and ex-politicos on CPAC navel-gazing about the current wrestling match between the Ottawa press and the Harper PMO.
There’s been some interesting general discussion, including a laughable half-denial/dismissal of “perceived” liberal bias in the Canadian media – “(oh, it exists, of course that’s acceptable, because that’s the enlightened small-l liberal world view – unlike the propoganda on FOX and US talk radio”). This was followed by – I’m not making this up – ironically revealing comments from David Halton on the “docility” of the American press towards the Bush administration, and their supposed practice of labelling anyone who disagrees with their policies as “unpatriotic” – confirming suspicions in some quarters that Canadian media uses Democratic Underground forums as a source on US politics.
Just in case you thought these people were capable of meaningful self-examination. I suggest you catch it, if it’s still on. If anyone digs up a transcript, there’s blogging gold in there….

PMO keeps reporters at bay with new rules (Warning – Canadian Press item contains scenes of extreme whining that may offend some readers.)
Another useless tool of the CBC responds to remind Canadians just who runs this damned country, and offers up a threat;

Harper�s treatment of the media is that of an ingrate. The media made Harper. The media also first made Trudeau and Mulroney. Later, the media made both Trudeau and Mulroney and their parties suffer at the polls.
A similar fate awaits Harper if he doesn�t change his basic suspicion and hatred of reporters and news commentators.

And thus, in the space of two short paragraphs, we have public acknowledgement of the ethical bankruptcy of his profession, as well as justification for Harper’s suspicion and efforts to restore the Canadian media to an appropriate level of influence.
Nicely done, Mr. Zolf.
via Jack’s Newswatch
update – I’ll give CTV News credit where it is due here, as they actually mention SDA by URL, unlike so many items in which debate on “the blogs” is mentioned without specifying where it can be found. (Or maybe it’s just a sneaky way to send CTV readers to commentary calling Larry Zolf a useless tool…)

Can Edwards attended a rally for Rahman and noted the (predictable) focus of the media;

Media turnout was good. There were, by my count, four television cameras there, including one from NBC Nightly News. The producer for Andrea Mitchell, a guy named Carl, kept asking question after question designed to elicit a critical response towards President Bush. Finally I had to say something.
“This is not a political issue. This is about a man in Afghanistan who is going to die because he believes in Jesus Christ…It’s a human rights issue…There are political overtones to everything, but that’s not why we’re out here. That’s not why President Bush should act…If y’all turn it inot a political issue–conservatives vs. Bush or conservatives vs. liberals– then you will have failed to get the message out.”

As they so often have. Because journalism is no longer about delivering factual information about current events in appropriate context. It’s become a faux-profession increasingly populated by individuals who aspire to influence political outcomes and public policy – but who are too lazy (or too stupid) to earn that right by running for political office the old fashioned way.
Update: What I said.